Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State

Mr. Nader has written this book to convince Libertarian Conservatives and Liberal Progressives that the time has come for them to unite in a party dedicated to replacing the two major parties that he believes have been suborned by corporations to act exclusively in their interests.Being conservative, I’ve always thought of Mr. Nader as being “over the top’” in portraying the malignancy of America’s big business corporations. However, he’s always seemed personable on TV appearances, so I believe that his yearning for reform is based on a sincere desire for social justice and not on the negative trait of hating business people merely because they accumulate wealth.It also can’t be denied that things have changed in a big way since the economic crash of 2008. It now looks like Mr. Nader was not so much a fanatic as a man ahead of his time. We’ve learned that excessive tax cuts on high income earners may destabilize the economy by fueling unsustainable budget deficits in the public sector and by encouraging the wealthy to pour money into reckless speculations that undermine the private sector. We’ve learned that depressing the wages of the working middle class by excessive job elimination via globalization and corporate cost-cutting mania do not prosper the country.In times like these, desperate people start thinking about founding new political parties that will return the government to the business of representing the interests of the people. We’ve had Populist movements in the past, and their result has been to push both major parties back towards the interests of the people.To build a new party requires bringing together unlikely coalitions --- Libertarian Conservatives and Progressive Liberals; young people and the elderly; urban minorities and white suburbanites and country people. That is what Ralph Nader is proposing to do now: to build a new party that pulls together the coalitions of people who have not benefited by the corporate agendas of removing the maximum number of Americans from employment opportunities, thus concentrating the wealth of the nation in the small number of people who own, invest, or manage businesses.Mr. Nader explains his points in a well-reasoned way. He tells his life story of growing up around a family-owned business, so it is clear that he respects the hard work and risk taking of small business owners who are more likely than not to be Conservatives. He then makes the case that when corporations become excessively powerful, they become detrimental to the people’s interests:=====Corporatism or “corporate statism,” as Grover Norquist calls it, is first and foremost a doctrine of corporate supremacy.Large corporations usually push, with whatever political, technological, economic, marketing, and cultural tools are required, the frontiers of domination in all directions…However you might describe them, it is hard to deny that their DNA commands them to control, undermine, or eliminate any force, tradition, or institution that impedes their expansion of sales, profits, and executive compensation.That is what is meant by corporate statism. And as it gets stronger, it delivers a weaker economy for a majority of Americans, a weaker democratic society, and record riches for the few.Key to understanding corporate behavior is the recognition that, while its propagandists trumpet the irreconcilable differences between Right and Left, corporations are remarkably flexible in relation to these divisions. What is behind this plasticity is a laser-like focus on expansion, profits, and bonuses.=====This is not really anything new. American Progressives and Libertarians have been saying the same thing ever since Thomas Jefferson resisted Alexander Hamilton’s design to turn the USA into a corporate-dominated state back in the 1790s. A century later, in 1892, President Grover Cleveland stated the danger as he saw it in his day:=====The fortunes realized by our manufacturers are no longer solely the reward of sturdy industry and enlightened foresight, but they result from the discriminating favor of the Government and are largely built upon undue exactions from the masses of our people.The gulf between employers and the employed is constantly widening, and classes are rapidly forming, one comprising the very rich and powerful, while in another are found the toiling poor…. the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel.Corporations, which should be carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters.The existing situation stifles all patriotic love of country, and substitutes in its place selfish greed and grasping avarice.Government, instead of being the embodiment of equality, is but an instrumentality through which especial and individual advantages are to be gained.=====Nader makes these points throughout the book, beginning with a historical analysis of anti-corporatism that goes back to Conservative icons Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Edward Burke, and Frederick Hayek. Nader manages to refute what he thinks are some common delusions among today’s Conservatives without being mean-spirited or condescending. So this is NOT a Conservative-bashing book, but rather one that seeks to show Conservatives where they have common cause with Liberals.He is fair in excoriating the hypocrisies of those old-line Liberal Progressives who used to condemn fascists while making excuses for genocidal Communist dictators. He says Liberal Progressives are also lazy in administering their vast budgets for social welfare programs effectively. So, there is a component of intellectual honesty here. He praises the “minimum income” plan of none other than Richard Nixon, which, if passed, would have replaced the welfare state BUREACRACY, an idea that Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats should have endorsed, if they could have looked past their partisan rancor.Most books of this type are strong in pointing out the symptoms of wealth inequality, but are weak in providing specific remedies to restore a fair balance between 1% and the 99%. While this book is not as specific as some might want, Mr. Nader does propose 25 “actions.” A lot of them are meaningless platitudes such as “encourage patronage of community businesses.” But there are a few somewhat specific things like raising the minimum wage and taxing income from wages, dividends, capital gains, and rents at the same rate. I would have liked for him to have been stronger in advocating the imposition of wage-equalization tariffs when American companies relocated overseas to use peon labor to produce product that is shipped back to the USA. But he does say that we have the right to opt out of our free-trade treaties with six months’ notice.Overall, I think this book is very readable by Conservatives, Liberals, and middle-of-the-roaders. It’s written in a congenial spirit, and Mr. Nader does dig deep in making most of his points. I agreed with maybe 50% of Mr. Nader’s proposals, and I’m pretty far to the right on the political spectrum.==================I originally wrote this review in 2014, but removed it in 2015 because I did not want my review list to become overly politicized. I am putting back up on 12/13/2106 because it is an important link in the evolution of my political thinking.I’ve voted for all Republican presidential candidates, except in 2012 when I voted for Obama. I voted for Obama because I believed his handling of domestic and foreign affairs justified his re-election. I also did not believe that Mitt Romney, an establishment Republican, understood middle class concerns for all the reasons Mr. Nader mentions in this book.In 2016 I voted for Trump because he convinced me that he is an anti-Establishment politician of the type Mr. Nader recommends. I heard one Bernie Sanders supporter, a Liberal environmental activist, complement Mr. Trump for running on the issues that matter to the distress middle class. So perhaps there really is an alliance between Libertarian Conservatives and Liberal Progressives. on this point. Ultimately, the Democrats decided to go with Ms. Clinton, their Establishment candidate. Trump prevailed over the Republican Establishment in the primaries, then over Ms. Clinton in the general election.I believe Trump prevailed because he demonstrated concern for restoring middle class jobs, as Mr. Nader mentions in this book. I don’t believe that any other Republican Establishment candidates shared his concerns, nor was Ms. Clinton a convincing advocate for middle class issues.

There is no question that Ralph Nader has long been a respected, but too often unheeded, voice decrying the dysfunction of the federal government. In Unstoppable, he zeroes in on the gridlock of the Beltway, alleging that much of this is the consequence of the cozy relationship between elected officials and the scions of a capitalistic economy that has run amuck. Nader labels this problem “corporatism.” His premise is that there exists amidst our vehemently partisan society, a potential for what he calls “convergence.” Indeed, Nader lists 25 issues on which he detects mutual concern on the part of some few supporters of both sides of the proverbial aisle. The projects he lists are most meaningful and needed. And I give him great credit for developing these. But I fear that the few spokespersons that he mentions as possible organizers of a convergence will not be able to break through the animosity and viciousness that characterizes both side of these battles without the support of huge numbers of citizens. I would be delighted to be wrong and to witness the interest he believes will develop. Many of the problems he pointed out have existed for years without correction. I have grave doubts that even the highly respected imprimatur of a man like Ralph Nader will energize corrective action. Take as an example the very first of his 25 concerns. It is the lack of proper auditing of the Department of Defense budget each year. Here is a quotation from the book: “Even people accustomed to reading the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and investigative media report about the mind-boggling waste, duplication and corporate frauds in the Pentagon are astounded to learn that the Department of Defense cannot or will not make an annual audit of its sprawling $527 billion yearly budget, not counting th wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. GAO auditors stationed at the Pentagon report every year to their principal—Congress—that the DOD’s books are inauditable!” Think: $700 toilet seats. $9 billion missing that has never been accounted for in the early months of the Iraq war, billion dollar contracts to build equipment that is equally effective at a lower cost or outdated now that the mode of warfare has changed. What about sending our boys to fight in the midEast without bullet proof vests and in vehicles that could not withstand the roadside explosives. I commend Ralph Nader highly for his courage in discussing the level of corruption and mismanagement in Washington today, but I must confess I have always held him somewhat responsible for what has happened. Had he not run as a candidate in the Presidential election of 2000, there would never have been an opportunity to question Al Gore’s victory. But a very questionable decision by the Supreme Court handed us eight years of George Bush, two wars, a devastating twin-tower invasion, tax breaks for those who needed it least, a shattered reputation around the globe and the loss of that patriotic American spirit that had carried us through the crash of 1929 and the victory of World War II. Ralph, show me a real potential for convergence and I will proudly stand alongside you as we march forward to a desperately needed new era in American politics.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for Ralph Nader. While he can come across as a little too idealistic at times, his level of knowledge and understanding of the issues that plague our social and political system is second to none. In this book, Ralph articulates how people from the left and the right can work together on various issues where they share common ground. I speculate that the reader would be surprised by the level of overlap citizens and groups from the political left and right paradigms share on issues such as corporate welfare/crony capitalism, bloated military spending, the environment, and civil liberties. Ralph carefully points out how both Democratic and Republican parties are beholden to corporate and special interests and consistently fail their respective constituencies. Nader also provides substantial history and background as to how the current political system has eroded over time. In a more polarized society and unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue than ever before, this is one of the most important books out there. I highly recommend any liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian, etc., read this book. There are essential takeaways that apply to anyone who cares about saving “democracy” [I use this term loosely, knowing the severe challenges that lie ahead] as we know it.

In this captivating book Ralph Nader beats the drum over the usurping of power by the largest corporations in America, a country, he reminds us, said to possess “the best Congress money can buy”. He quotes (similar to Martin Luther King’s claim “This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor”), Fareed Zakaria’s “The US defence establishment is the world’s largest socialist economy”, and Gore Vidal’s “America is a unique society where you have free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich”. He cites many ills of present society that invite liberal-conservative (L-C) convergence, including: the undue ability of corporations to influence elections as a result of their being considered as persons from the point of view of contribution allowances; the excess corporate welfare practiced by government in favour of the largest corporations; low wages; revolving doors between top positions in corporations and government; the dearth of criminal prosecutions in relation to the causes of the 2008 recession and other instances of corporate crime; excessive deregulation; the ills coming from the military-industrial complex; international trade agreements (where the right object to loss of sovereignty, and the left to loss of employment); crony capitalism and favouritism; and the need to break up banks. If only opposite sides could come together on these.The author claims that corporations have exploited and fostered the L-C divide in order to divide and rule, and thereby anticipate the threat of a formidable force against them. The conservative narrative has even become distorted in favour of corporations. Conservative icons of the past often did the opposite of what are presented today as conservative ideals: Adam Smith favoured social levelling through taxation; Heyek advocated universal healthcare; Milton Freidman was for controlling pollution, and he and Nixon favoured working tax credits; Ronald Regan was ideologically against corporate welfare and also introduced a record government deficit. Today’s L-C entrenched positions over such issues as gun control, net neutrality, right to life, global warming, the surveillance state, international trade agreements, Obamacare, government subsidies, minimum wage, breaking up of the big banks and separating commercial banking with investing, etc. have been accentuated and mercilessly enforced on members of each side. Nader adds the point that the conventional media are in no position to help since their DNA is attached to conflict, controversy and visible disruption. But in the end, blind adherence to one doctrine or the other ends up meaning less democracy for everybody.The author advocates governing by issue rather than by doctrine in order to defeat vested interests trying to block progress. He cites many cases where individuals have crossed the line in the recent past (for example citing Pat Buchanan’s 2005 book “Where the Right Went Wrong” where criticism is launched against recent US corporate globalisation, military adventurism, and the neocon/corporatist takeover) in instances all too predictably labelled unholy alliances by the media. He cites polls that have shown that the American public often has a much more defined majority opinion than the numerical L-C divide might indicate.This is a great read which makes a good case.

Good exploration of the terms Liberal and Conservative often thrown around in US politics with their actual meanings disguised or bastardised.

I bought this to support Nader and his work. (I'm always a sucker for people that are willing to work in exchange for money.) And I enjoyed it thoroughly. I'm very pleased with his take on things. It nice to be reminded so succinctly that there are people who are not 100% partisan, despite what the MSM says and what they parties themselves do. I don't give it 5 stars because it's not ground breaking or essential reading.

Ralph Nader is an interesting man with interesting ideas, but I found the argument in this book a bit woolly. Somewhat disappointing.

If you disregard nader you will do so at your own peril